Re: SL-16

Mir16609@aol.com
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:10:51 EDT

In a message dated 8/13/99 6:23:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
jhusnay@scsinet.com writes:

>  Probably my imagination but SL-16 did seem slower. Is that
>  possible in such a short span of time, 10 to 14 days. Has anyone been
>  able to get an actual count yet?? And has the tumbling been steady,
>  increasing or decreasing?

Ref:
http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/Aug-1999/0101.html
99-039 B 99-07-28 02:11:06.1 JDG  55.1 0.5 100  0.551 2.0->inv
99-039 B 99-08-02 01:10:45.9 JDG  55.9 0.5 100  0.559 2.5->inv
99-039 B 99-08-02 02:46:09.9 JDG  55.9 0.5 100  0.559 2.5->inv
99-039 B 99-08-03 01:39:03.6 JDG  56.6 0.5 100  0.566 2.5->inv
99-039 B 99-08-04 02:03:25.2 JDG  55.1 0.5 100  0.551 2.5->inv
99-039 B 99-08-07 01:48:13.2 JDG  57.2 0.5 100  0.572 2.0->inv

I am expecting this one to nearly grind to a halt by this time next year.  I 
was a little surprised to see that the slow down from .551 secs./flash to 
.572 secs./flash was measurable over 10 days.  To be honest the 100 cycles 
were +/-1 but my time accuracy was probably better than +/-0.5 sec.   

>  Has any other "naked eye" RB or satellite ever tumbled as fast as this
>  one is? And what causes it to tumble in such an out of control speed?

24298, 25400 and 25407 were all bright and rapid tumblers for a while.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it's from the post-payload 
separation fuel dump.  By dumping the remaining fuel the probability of an 
explosion (creating lots of fragments) is greatly reduced.
--
Cheers
Don Gardner  39.1796 N, 76.8419 W, 34m ASL
Homepage: http://hometown.aol.com/mir16609/
Internet Phone domain:  mir.selfhost.com  |  stickman1@burkittsville.org